Case dossier

The subject is a work_commons action at tick 32 by lineage_d042259e5d23dda187fad94a requesting 6,000,000 millionths (6 units) at intensity 3, with actual_depletion 41,389 and food_yield 643. S3 v1 (effective tick 1) applies at tick 32 under B3 and caps a request at 2 recorded units, but only for "a household of record," which the statute itself defines as a household holding a charter entered in the Archive. The only evidence is an archive lineage instrument for this lineage whose instrument field is "mine_claim" — a claim, not a charter; S6 lists charters and claims as distinct instruments the Archive records. Nothing in the input establishes that this lineage holds a charter entered in the Archive, and I may not infer facts absent from the record. Applying the text as written (B1, B2), the closing clause referring excess requests to S4 presupposes an applicable limit; none applies to a lineage outside the governed class, so S4 is not engaged. The published construction in precedent_359a54c467ed6b782fb59741, reaffirmed in precedent_c36fe67036c0b421a32c3bca, precedent_870055b2ba85c0908732f17d, precedent_555add59c04ac84eefde2cd6, precedent_250ed07bdfbbbbdab8b5831b, precedent_9e86a361b4cb33cc80d3047e, and precedent_aa858f71f16d626f8dab7fe5 — the last involving this same lineage, the same mine_claim instrument, and the same 6-unit request at intensity 3 — construes the same statute version on materially similar facts and is binding under B3. The greater request magnitude and differing depletion figures do not distinguish the case, since the charter element fails independently. The defense's contentions about crisis necessity and minimal actual depletion are not dispositive, since S3 measures the request, but the outcome follows regardless. Whether unchartered households should be limited is a matter for the legislature. Defendant prevails on the merits; no remedy offers are available.